Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 23 May 1984

Vol. 104 No. 1

Consumer Information (Miscellaneous Goods) (Marking) Order, 1984: Motion.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann approves the following order in draft:— ...

Consumer Information (Miscellaneous Goods) (Marking) Order, 1984,

a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Seanad Éireann on 11th April, 1984.

This motion arises because of the need to bring our current origin-marking regulations into line with EEC law. The existing requirements are laid down in a series of merchandise marks restriction orders made under the 1931 Merchandise Marks Act. These orders cover a wide range of products including footwear, carpets, wooden furniture, men's and boys' outer garments, souvenir jewellery, knitted and crocheted clothing and hosiery. They lay down that products of the types specified in the individual orders cannot be imported into the State unless they bear an indication of the country of origin or in some cases the words "Foreign" or "Imported". In addition, the sale of many of these products is prohibited unless they are similarly marked.

In 1977 the Commission of the European Communities complained to Ireland about the restriction orders which we then had on the importation and sale of souvenir jewellery. The articles of jewellery affected were those incorporating features suggesting that they were souvenirs of Ireland — such as an Irish character, event or scene, a wolfhound, round tower, shamrock or other emblems.

The purpose of the orders was to eliminate the possibility of consumers being misled when buying souvenir jewellery. It was felt that if a consumer, say a tourist, was confronted with an article of jewellery incorporating a distinctly Irish motif he would, in the absence of an indication that it was foreign, be of the impression that the article originated in Ireland. The Commission, however, regarded the merchandise marks orders as contravening the Treaty of Rome which prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports between member states or measures having an equivalent effect. They considered that a requirement which subjected imported products only to conditions which were different from those for domestic products, constituted a technical barrier to trade. They asked that the orders be amended to bring them into line with what they regarded as Ireland's Treaty obligations.

We did not accept the Commission's reasoning and they subsequently initiated legal action in the European Court of Justice. The ruling of the court was that the jewellery orders were in breach of the Treaty and in January 1984, the Minister made an order bringing our legislation into line with the court ruling.

Subsequent to the court judgment however, the EEC Commission complained to us about several of the other restriction orders. Faced with the possibility of further court cases, which in all probability we would lose, it was decided to adopt a new and more flexible system of origin-marking under the Consumer Information Act. The new order will be confined to a smaller range of products and follows intensive consultations with the relevant sectors of Irish industry. The products covered are garments and clothing accessories, wooden furniture, footwear, carpets and souvenir jewellery.

I believe that consumers have a right to be informed of the origin of the product especially when there is a possibility that the omission of such an indication would be misleading. Consequently, I propose to make the order which is the subject of this motion — requiring that products in the affected categories, regardless of where they are manufactured, shall bear an origin mark. Under this order, which I commend to the House, no distinction will be made on the basis of the country of origin. All items whether made in Ireland or anywhere else would have to be marked. I would make the point that the onus of marking the goods will be on the retailer and thus, unlike the existing orders, no imposition will be put on manufacturers to mark their products with the country of origin though in practice they may do so. The retailer will, of course, have to be informed as to the country of origin and this is provided for in the order.

Unlike the previous order that we discussed, I fully support from the very outset what is involved in this order. I know that we face many, many problems in the promotion, sale and distribution of our own goods at home. But one of the inhibiting factors and one of the very serious problems facing Irish manufacturers was the competition from not alone our European partners but from the eastern countries where you have cheap labour producing goods which we cannot compete against. We were unfortunate to have been actually involved in court proceedings in Europe. The Treaty obligations imposed on us have to a great degree affected our manufacturing industry in this country but then, coupled with that, we have companies that I could only describe as cowboys or get-rich-quick merchants at the expense of the working people in this country, who are importing items mentioned here by the Minister — clothing and other goods — produced in and purchased from countries which can produce them very cheaply under almost slave labour conditions and advertising them nationally day after day on radio and television with a special type of label. I would like the Minister to clarify if this legislation would cover this type of trading whereby a fixed brand label that is nationally known, nationally advertised, with probably a very good Irish flavour to its name, is applied to goods and when this label is removed we find that the goods are perhaps made in Korea, or China or somewhere. I refer specifically here to garments and, indeed, in many cases to the other goods that are mentioned in the order here in relation to souvenirs.

The Brian Boru harp or other harps were mentioned, the design of which is associated with Ireland. Most of these that are on sale and that are bought by tourists and by native Irish people in places as far away as Achill, we find are imported goods. They are being sold and have been sold as Irish goods. As a member of the Small Businesses Committee I found that this is one of the very serious problems that have confronted manufacturers in this country. We have made special recommendations that legislation be introduced to try to kill off these "get-rich-quick cowboys". The serious effects this has had on the workforce in this country over the last number of years has been underestimated. I think if we had some means whereby even in addition to the order before this House we could alert the public to the extent of the abuse that has taken place over the last ten years especially, it would certainly be a help. I fully support the order.

I also fully support this order and although it is brief it goes a long way to help various Irish industries. In fact when you look at the areas covered, garments and clothing accessories, wooden furniture, footwear, carpets, souvenirs and jewellery, they are areas which have a large employment content and I think it would in effect help Irish industry to have an Irish marking on these goods. For too long too many people who wish to purchase Irish manufactured goods find, when they purchase goods, that in fact they are foreign goods. The order states that all items whether made in Ireland or anywhere else will be marked. This would give a benefit especially to the tourist who would wish to help Irish industry. It would give him or her the benefit of identifying an Irish-manufactured item and therefore naturally he or she would go for an Irish manufactured item.

I think it is correct to put the emphasis on the retailer and although the emphasis will not be on the manufacturer possibly the retailer will insist that the manufacturer would identify his product and in fact if the manufacturer wishes to sell more Irish goods it would be to his advantage to state on that item that it was Irish made. Therefore, it gives us a competitive edge on the imported item which, as the previous speaker said, comes from countries which have very cheap labour and therefore there is the possibility of dumping.

This order identifies very clearly a product made in Ireland or an imported product. It actually gives the item an identification which was not there before, especially in the clothing area where you have a large employment content. The clothing business is competing against foreign manufacturers and companies which, as I said before, are inclined to dump their excess produce in this country. So, in that area where you have large employment I think it is important that we give them every help we possibly can. This order helps that particular area. It helps all through the industry. I think it is right to cover just a limited number of products as it does and it covers, as I said before, a high labour intensive operation. I welcome this Bill.

Just a couple of points I want to make on the Bill. I am disappointed that the onus is being placed on the retailer in this to mark the product. It is ludicrous to expect the onus to be on the retailer again. If it is an imported product the importer should be the one on whom the onus is to mark the goods, stating quite categorically that this unit or whatever it is, comes from such a place. It is not specified here, but some items can be marked as being "Foreign" and some must have the country of origin marked on them; I cannot see the difference as long as the product is marked "Foreign". The onus should be placed on the importer to do the marking.

Again, I am just wondering what is the situation regarding the huge number of casual traders that are going around the country at present, and for the summer months they seem to come out of the ground, as it were. I am sure that 90 per cent of the goods that are being sold by these casual traders are foreign goods and I wonder could the Minister say how he will implement this order in the case of casual traders moving from area to area.

Ninety per cent of the items specified in the order, apart from souvenirs, for example, garments of any material, wooden furniture, footwear, carpets and so on, are the very items that are being sold. They are dumped on the side of streets, unprotected when it rains. Nobody knows where they come from. I would like, first, the onus to be placed on the importer to mark the goods as to country of origin and, secondly, a guarantee that the casual traders will be monitored more carefully than the person in a legitimate business who can be monitored on any day of the week.

Footwear is one of the important items with casual or itinerant traders but, I have never seen a shoe of Irish manufacture on their stands. I sincerely hope that monitoring will take place so that these people will be brought under the aegis of this overdue order.

In this motion we are talking mainly of souvenirs and the television programme "Hands" shows the number and diversity of items being produced here as souvenirs whose quality is magnificent, whose price is not out of order. The junk that has been sold here over the years as souvenirs with Irish motifs has been of disgraceful quality, although I am not suggesting that when one goes abroad, no matter where, one will not also find junk jewellery and souvenirs.

Over the last 15 years we have created a craft industry of little workshops throughout the country. When one talks about employment content, these workshops, in the main, are increasing in number. One very rarely hears of one of them going out of business, but rather of their taking on one or two extra people. One cannot say that they are doubling their staff, but one hears of some bigger factories doubling their numbers and within a very short time the extra people are being let go. We must in every way possible try to ensure that people in our craft and every other industry are able to regulate their trade without unfair competition from abroad.

I would almost disagree with the motion if I thought that the importers were going to be free from the onus that should be on them of marking the goods they are importing as to country of origin.

First, I should like to congratulate the Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism for having contested the decision of the Commission in this regard. Senator Lanigan shares the same concern as I in regard to the kind of activity that has gone on under the Sales of Goods Act particularly in connection with souvenirs. The use of imported goods has been almost criminal. No one knows that better than the Minister of State who is often confronted with souvenirs allegedly from Killarney but actually made in Taiwan or China. Tourists, particularly from the United States, assume that these are Irish made articles and would not otherwise purchase them. The whole philosophy behind buying souvenirs is that one likes to buy a souvenir made in the country being visited.

We failed to win our case in the European Courts because it was interpreted that making it obligatory to have the country of origin marked on the product somehow interfered with the right of free sale under the Treaty of Rome. We are now putting an onus, not so much on the importer, but on the retailer, to mark the country of origin. How will the monitoring of that requirement be carried out? We will be totally dependent on distributors marking on the product the country of origin. I do not know how that can be done effectively and if it is not done effectively our whole market, particularly among the craft enterprises marking genuine Irish souvenirs, could be subjected to much unfair competition under the Treaty of Rome if many products are allowed in unmarked — the obligation only involving the distribution side of it. It seems quite a difficult order to implement in the spirit that the Minister wants. He possibly has some thoughts on how it will be done at that level.

We are faced with a dilemma in that many people here have vested interests in regard to the distribution of goods which are not made in Ireland and that is a tragedy. That happens in every sector, in horticulture and other areas where the home market is subjected to more stringent regulations. For instance, in the production of food, people are subjected to all sorts of inspections by health board inspectors, and rightly so. Certainly, one can see every day on shelves similar goods made abroad and we have no idea whether they are subjected to the same regulations as ours. The home industry is subjected to much unfair competition from people who have vested interests in bringing in goods which they use as a backload after going abroad with other goods.

We would need to be careful that there are not vested interests among retailers in this industry, resulting in the stamping of an article as made in Ireland when, in fact, it might not have been made in Ireland at all but nobody could prove that. The manufacturer now will have no obligation to mark on his product that it was made in any particular country. I hope that the Minister and his advisers will look at the possibility of abuses in this regard.

I compliment the Minister for having tried the case in the court. I felt it was a good case but obviously it was ruled that it interfered with free sale and importation under the Treaty of Rome. For that reason, we have to make an amending order today. If it can be implemented fully to safeguard producers of our products, I shall welcome it.

I welcome the order. I agree that the consumer has the right to be protected, but like the previous speaker I am a little worried that the onus is being put on the retailer. We have many "fly by night" traders and roadside traders who have no obligations. As Senator Lanigan said, the onus should be on the importer to mark the country of origin. That would be more effective.

Could I just ask a question before the Minister replies? The schedule on carpets includes sample carpets displayed in sample books, carpeting, rugs, mats and matting, other than any such articles made or adapted for installation in a motor vehicle. Why are carpets for a motor vehicle not subject to this order? In many cases they are adapted from ordinary carpeting. If somebody is going to sell car carpets as an accessory, why should the country of origin not be stamped on the motor vehicle carpet as well as on every other carpet?

I should like to thank the Senators who contributed. This order is very necessary in relation to the misleading situation with which a consumer would be presented. A number of points have been raised that have much validity. Anxiety was expressed by Senator Lanigan about the onus being put on the retailer rather than the manufacturer with regard to marking the country of origin. Certain onuses are also placed on the manufacturer, who has to supply the retailer with that information. Generally, an arrangement will be arrived at between the retailer and manufacturer that in the manufacture of the goods this statutory regulation will be observed. It rests with the retailer and not with the manufacturer to ensure that the legal situation regarding the consumer is met. This is the point at issue here. The manufactured article will generally carry the country of origin but the responsibility is placed on the manufacturer to give that information to the retailer.

These orders have been drafted in full consultation with all the interests involved. It was necessary in the drafting that we did not impinge further on our Treaty of Rome obligations. We are satisfied that this is quite in order.

If the products are covered by the order, when must this be carried out? The origin label will have to be clearly associated with the product. It cannot be covered by any other writing or covering. This legislation will not present any major problems to the retailer. I believe there will be co-ordination with the manufacturer and that the manufacturer will see the validity of ensuring that he meets the requirements. Therefore, the retailer — who is the person responsible to the consumer — will have that responsibility removed from him.

On the points raised by the Senator Lanigan regarding casual traders, I assure him that these are covered by the order. All their products will have to observe the same regulations as those which the ordinary shopkeeper will have to observe and we all thoroughly agree with that. This is non-contentious legislation. There have been protracted discussions with the interests involved and they are all quite happy with its implementation. I thank the Senators for their further co-operation today. I hope that, in the first instance, it will give that degree of information to consumers to which they are entitled and secondly, that as mentioned by Senator Lynch, it will help to demonstrate to the Irish consumer the articles that are manufactured at home and those that are imported. Because of that, it should benefit Irish industry.

Under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act the onus is on the retailer. What I am concerned about is that under present legislation if a retailer is found selling a bottle of milk that may have a little bit of cement or other item stuck on the inside of the bottle, he is summoned and brought to court. I have had a similar experience.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Lynch, would you please ask a question?

I want to ask the Minister will this order apply to the sale of secondhand cars which is a very bad spot in the black economy which is ruining the country. Secondhand cars are being imported and refurbished and sold in the black economy without any tax being paid.

All secondhand articles offered for sale are excluded.

What of the question of car carpets as against other carpets?

They were not in the original order and after consultation with industry they continue to be excluded.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn